Disorder in Iraq


Disorder in Iraq Fitzgerald Scott ISS 331 Social Theory TH

Disorder in Iraq Disorder in Iraq The UN ability to create order in Iraq is reliant on the UN’s ability to dominate Iraq. The disorder in Iraq can be explained using several principles from Max Weber, Engels and Marx. One of the main reasons for the disorder in Iraq is because the


leadership currently running Iraq does not qualify to lead the country. Another reason for disorder in Iraq is because the people in Iraq have not accepted conditions by which they will be ruled by the new governing body. One of the biggest mistakes made by the UN forces was to start setting up government before they had a monopoly of the land and the weapons. A combination of errors has created a new situation in Iraq that can become an actual revolution and escalate to a much larger battle between the 2004 bourgeoisie. According to Max Weber, there are three grounds of legitimate domination. If the new government can become legally legitimate, legitimate on traditional grounds or legitimate on charismatic grounds; the possibility of maintaining order in Iraq may be a conceivable goal for the new government. The UN does not have rational grounds for legitimate domination because there are questions about whether the UN has legal authority to direct government in Iraq. From the beginning, there was question as to the legality of the invasion of Iraq. There was serious debate as to whether those who supported the invasion of Iraq met the international law requirement and followed the guidelines of the UN Charter by proving that there was an imminent threat which required the use of force. The lack of information and proof that there was an imminent threat is still an issue and therefore ruins the validity to any legal right the UN has in Iraq. The basis for the argument to invade Iraq was the threat of nuclear weapon capability. In particular, the

Disorder in Iraq accusation that Iraq purchased uranium ore from Niger was center for the argument to invade. After some investigation, the accusation has been found to be lacking in legitimacy. An added setback to the legal claim of legitimacy to dominate in Iraq is the claim from Kofi Annan that there was no authorization for members of the UN to invade


Iraq. Any attempt to create order in this illegitimate state may add to the disorder in Iraq. The UN can establish legitimacy to dominate on the grounds of tradition because historically, Iraq is subject to whoever takes possession of the country. Saddam took control using force as did many leaders before him. Traditionally, who ever has the power to rule is in charge. The remainder of the Bath party and other Sunnis should fall in line once defeated. The recent uprising in the Sunni Triangle continuously takes validity away from the UN power in Iraq. Because those who occupy the seat of power in Iraq today are not the people who actually overthrew Saddam’s regime, legitimacy based on the grounds of tradition is weakened even further. When Saddam took power, as in the case with many of Saddam’s predecessors, he was the commander of the forces that actually took control. When the fight was over he took his rightful place as commander in chief. These seats of control are held instead by Ayad Allowi (an appointed prime minister) and Sheik Ghazi al-Yawar (the appointed Iraqi presedent). I have not found any evidence that Dr. Allawi or Sheik Ghazi al-Yawar participated at any level in the ousting of Saddam's Regime. So what right do they have to a seat of power in the Arabic World? Traditional legitimacy can also be qualified with the occupation of the traditional seat of power. The traditional seat of power in Iraq for many years has been the seat of

Disorder in Iraq dictator. The people of Iraq may have not wanted another dictator but occupation of the dictator seat of power may have been essential in order to make a smooth transformation from dictatorship to democracy. Putting in an interim government destroyed the seat of dictatorship before the


power could be transferred to another position. Disorder may exist because the people of Iraq may not know how to function with this kind of government, because they have been living under another kind of rule for so long. Putting someone in the dictator seat of power could have given some legitimacy to the ruling body currently running Iraq. There may have been a chance to establish legitimate control by putting a leader into power who possesses charismatic qualities which would qualify domination under charismatic grounds. There are many leaders that have been added to the interim government who do possess these leadership qualities but, there has been enough resistance from the insurgents to stifle the effort. Muhammad Awad is the provincial governor, but doubles as the mayor of Ramadi after insurgents kidnapped the sons of the previous governor and after the deputy mayor was kidnapped and killed by insurgents. The elections that will take place at the end of January can add legitimacy to the new government rule, but that is undermined by the threats by clerics to boycott. The people in Iraq will continue to act in a disorderly fashion until there are some conditions the UN are willing to live up to. According to Marx and Englels “in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue it slavish existence” (p12 Collins). The promises made to the people of Iraq have grown thin.

Disorder in Iraq It would seem that the Kurds have accepted whatever conditions the UN has


given them. In Erbil, Iraq there have been very little instances of civil unrest and the area seems to be enjoying some degree of normalcy. Because of the dark relationship between the Kurds and Saddam Hussein, the Kurds had the most to gain from a relationship with the US. The rest of Iraq does not seem to have the similar interest for protection against bordering Arab countries. The UN needs to find some appealing reason for the Iraq people to come aboard. According to Marx and Englels, regulation is made by whoever has a monopoly on the land, and a monopoly on weapons. The US has neither. US forces were surprised by the quantity and the high quality of weapons that were turned in during when the Shia rebels turned in their weapons in Sadr City. The weapons stash was only part of the weapons that are owned by the people who are in Iraq. The people who turned in their weapons are the people who volunteered to turn in their weapons and mostly those loyal to cleric Moqtada and only in Sadr city. The issue on whether or not the UN has a monopoly on the land is a major concern. There is unrest to the US occupation of Iraq in various territories in Iraq. More importantly, the areas of most unrest like Baghdad, Mosel and Falluja are some of the most populated areas in Iraq. The recent bout between the US and insurgents in Falluha is the biggest indicator that the UN does not have a monopoly over the land. America started dictating rules and regulations before they had become the landowners thereby creating another instance of disorder.

Disorder in Iraq There is a lot of confusion by the Iraqi people about who to follow. Before the insurgents became so powerful and popular with the news media, The UN had a chance to maintain some order. The more powerful the insurgents seem the less control the US will have. Recent uprising in the Mosul and rumors that Brig Gen Mohammed Kheiri


Barhawithe, the head of the police, may have been aiding the rebels in the recent uprising there is an indication of America moving farther and farther away from having a monopoly of the land and weapons. The new method of fighting by the insurgents is most disturbing to the UN. The insurgents do not sit still and fight. They mount offences against venerable areas, raid police stations and build weapons caches through out Iraq. The land around the oil fields are in the UN control which gives the UN power over the means of production and but even that is not completely secure. Insurgents were able to penetrate the defenses and sabotage the pipelines around Kirkuk and Basra. This act of violence hurt the economy of the national level. While the UN and insurgents volley for control of the property, the rest of Iraq lay in turmoil. I would think the situation in Iraq will follow the dialectic model and an unforeseen phenomenon may occur. According to the dialectic model a revolution will occur. The current leadership seems unfit and too incompetent to provide sustenance. The clerics are positioning themselves to take control. Weapons caches found in Mosque are an indication that the clerics are consorting with the dangerous class. Even if the Election go well at the end of January the situation in Iraq is far from entering into any stability. Prime Minister Allawi has frequently vowed that the elections will go on even if some of the places where the interim government does not have control

Disorder in Iraq have to be excluded. The reason I believe that the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie


has not made a move yet is because they are waiting for a more permanent figure to fight against. A president will do fine.

Disorder in Iraq Citation


Engels F. (2003). The origin of the state. In M. Hechter & C. Horne (Eds), Theories of Social Order a reader (pp197-182). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fuller, T. (2004, November 3). Kurds Enjoy a Calmer Corner of Iraq. The New York Times, p A6.

Iraqi Shia rebels surrender arms Fighters loyal to radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr have been handing over their heavy weapons in the Sadr City area of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. (200 4October 11). BBC News UK edition. Retrieved November 15, 2004, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3732190.stm

Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1994). History as Class Struggle [1848]; Materialism and the Theory of Ideology [1846]; The Class Basis of Politics and Revolution [1852]. In R. Collins (Ed.), Four sociological traditions selected readings (pp. 3-35). Oxford: Oxford University press.

Mason, B. (2003, March 14). The question of whether a war on Iraq is legal under international law will become more pressing if the United States and Britain fail to get a new Security Council resolution. BBC News UK edition. Retrieved November 15, 2004, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2850043.stm

Disorder in Iraq


Safire. W. (2004, July 19). Uranium retraction ill-advised. The Times Union, pA7.

Weber, M. (2003). The Types of Legitimate Domination. In M. Hechter & C. Horne (Eds), Theories of Social Order a reader (pp. 183-203). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Wong, E. (2004, Ocober 28). The Conflict In Iraq: Insurgents; Provincial Capital Near Falluja Is Rapidly Slipping Into Chaos. The New York Times, pp A1, A12.

Wong, E (2004, November 3). Insurgents blow up an Iraqi oil pipeline. The New York Times, p A6.